When viewing an HD-DVD or blu-ray disc, we all seem to like the 3D effect. Many of us define the PQ of a given disc by noting how often we see these effects (the more the better). I sure do.

But why? When i view a movie in a public theater, i don't see any 3D effects up there on the big screen. Since the PQ of these is obviously superior to my 1080p display at home, why should i consider the 3D effect to be a good thing from a PQ standpoint?

I can't figure it out ....

You trying to be convinced? For me it looks better, cleaner, crisper that way.

I know... it looks cleaner/better/crisper to me, too.

But, IMO the goal of home theater media should be to duplicate, as much as possible, what we see in the public theater (assuming the public theater has state-of-the-art equipment).

Ideally, i'd like to be like the White House and have my own actual movie projector and view the film reels.

And those don't have "pop out" effects ...

The only time I ever saw this effect was in Matrix revolutions when one of the diggers legs get destroyed and when Neo and Trinity go to the machine city and the huge ass machine ships come out.

Lot of 3D like effects in The Chronicles of Riddick. Every body I demo to wants to get that on every movie (its even there to some extent in the SD DVD of CoR). It just make the pic stand out. Actually I am disappointed in most thearter presentations. Most of the cimamax complexs here are poorly set up (even tho they are new). Yes the screen is large and the sound can be down right awsome at times but over all never found the pic that sharp. Maybe cause of the size I always notice flaws more then on my HT at home. Only thearters that have impress me are the IMAX ones.

Greetings

The goal of the equipment should be to deliver the film the way the film makers want it to look on HD media ...

What it looked like in the theater really has nothing to do with it.

Film and HD are different mediums with different strengths and weaknesses. Film has a larger color palette for instance ... cannot duplicate that.

Regards

I don't see this 3d effect everyone talks of. Picture looks great but hardly 3d. Best disk I've seen is Hotfuzz on my 1080p SXRD.

Greetings

The goal of the equipment should be to deliver the film the way the film makers want it to look on HD media ...

What it looked like in the theater really has nothing to do with it.


Really? I always thought the ideal was to duplicate, as much as possible, what we get in the public theater. I'm not sure the 3d-effect takes us in that direction?

When i first got an HD-DVD player in April 06, the very first disc i viewed, Serenity, had the 3D effect. At the time, i thought it was really neat, but i also so it as a FLAW in the film-to-HD transfer process.

I interpreted it as the HD media being so sensitive that it could show us where special effects were done (eg., the reason for the 3D effect was because an actor was actually standing in front of a blue-screen and the SFX folks didn't do a good job of "seamlessly" integrating the real actor with the fake backround, etc.).

Kind of like way back in the mid-80s when compact discs first came out, many of them had a disclaimer that said something to the effect of "the CD media is so sensitive that it may allow you to hear flaws in the source tape"...

Perhaps the 3D effect is the same type of thing ... ?

Really? I always thought the ideal was to duplicate, as much as possible, what we get in the public theater. I'm not sure the 3d-effect takes us in that direction?

The idea of HDM duplicating what we see in the theater is bogus. It is meant to duplicate the directors intentions of what the film is to look like. For instance, if Transformers comes out and looks like it did at the AMC theater I saw it in...I would rather buy it on VHS. The image was extremely blurry on the left side of the screen, like there was a giant smudge on the lens.

So to say that it is meant to replicate the theater image is an improper way to describe it as all theaters are different and some of them down right stink.

I don't see this 3d effect everyone talks of. Picture looks great but hardly 3d. Best disk I've seen is Hotfuzz on my 1080p SXRD.

+1

For me, it's all about the added color and clarity, not "3D"...my favorite thing when watching is being able to vividly see stuff in the backgrounds now, especially outdoor scenic shots, they just come to life, much closer to what you'd see with your naked eye if you were actually standing right there -- Unforgiven, Planet Earth, Seabiscuit, etc, come to mind.

I don't see this 3d effect everyone talks of. Picture looks great but hardly 3d. Best disk I've seen is Hotfuzz on my 1080p SXRD.

SXRD based displays are lacking in this department (although getting better), check out Widescreen Reviews; review for the VPL-VW50 for reference.

Greetings

A common misconception.

Film makers don't see need for a 1:1 correlation between what was in the theater and what the video format looks like. The medium is different.

The version you see in the theater is not always the definitive vision of the artist.

The medium is different ... the rules for the theater do not adhere to the home presentation. Compromises get made ... due to inherent limitation of the system ... the film gets re-interpreted within the bounds of these limits. And sometimes ... film makers change their minds and purposely alter the video version.

Regards

I think that the idea that the compositing wasn't done well is a very valid point.
You can't just key out the green screen and assume it will look right when comped into the frame. You have to consider lighting, match the colors/palette. Good roto will only get you so far.
I can't say anything about Serenity because i haven't seen the disk yet (looking forward to it, though).
That leads me to wonder if one of the factors to the "3D effect" isn't one of contrasts. Having a stark color contrast between a subject and the background or surrounding objects could probably help the "pop".
Also, I think that having a a high Depth-Of-Field could influence how we perceive this, accentuating our perception.

In regards to it being purely bad compositing, though... One of the first things that I saw on my (value-line Akai) HDTV was SNL. No compositing here, but I felt like I could touch the actors, like they were in my living room. I know that you can't really compare Film versus HD video. Different framerates, different lenses, different lighting...

I don't see this 3d effect everyone talks of. Picture looks great but hardly 3d. Best disk I've seen is Hotfuzz on my 1080p SXRD.

SXRD based displays are lacking in this department (although getting better), check out Widescreen Reviews; review for the VPL-VW50 for reference.

I have an SXRD display, and I certainly see the 3D effect.
J

My favorite demo scene for the 3D effect is when King Kong gets Anne for the first time and seems to look towards the camera. OOOOOH... It gives you chills. I love it.

I have an SXRD display, and I certainly see the 3D effect.
J

Grats.

The very first HD DVD I watched on my Panasonic PT-AE900U (720p) was u-571. The scene at the end where they sink the detstoyer looked very 3D. I had watched this many times, and you could see through the special effects and that it was clearly a model.

SXRD based displays are lacking in this department (although getting better), check out Widescreen Reviews; review for the VPL-VW50 for reference.

most people don't have a 5k projector. My A2000 is definitly a step up from all the DLPs, Visios and cheaper plasmas. Besides, I've never seen the VW50, but I'm pretty sure the newer Pioneer plasmas will make it look like chit.

3D comes how they light the subject. Since film is actually 2D they use different lights to create the illusion of 3D. Thats why they never (almost) light subject from the same angle of the camera. That just make peoples faces flat.

most people don't have a 5k projector. My A2000 is definitly a step up from all the DLPs, Visios and cheaper plasmas. Besides, I've never seen the VW50, but I'm pretty sure the newer Pioneer plasmas will make it look like chit.
I've got a 60" SXRD1, and at least some movies show the 3D effect-mostly Sci-Fi . Its quite apparent on parts of Serenity and Chronicles of Riddick.
J

most people don't have a 5k projector. My A2000 is definitly a step up from all the DLPs, Visios and cheaper plasmas. Besides, I've never seen the VW50, but I'm pretty sure the newer Pioneer plasmas will make it look like chit.

You sound defensive, why? You mentioned not seeing 3D pop and said you had a SXRD, I offered a reason and a reference, I don't own a Pearl or any other SXRD display nor am I slighting anyone who does; that said what do Pioneer plasmas have to do with this? :confused:

The idea of HDM duplicating what we see in the theater is bogus. It is meant to duplicate the directors intentions of what the film is to look like. For instance, if Transformers comes out and looks like it did at the AMC theater I saw it in...I would rather buy it on VHS. The image was extremely blurry on the left side of the screen, like there was a giant smudge on the lens.

So to say that it is meant to replicate the theater image is an improper way to describe it as all theaters are different and some of them down right stink.

.. well that's why i added the caveat about the theater having state of the art, properly functioning equipment. it's not the fault of the film "medium" in general if a particular theater has a bad projector, etc.

Greetings

As long as there is a film projector there ... rather than a digital projector ... there really is no ideal film presentation in the theater. The HD version ... like Blazing Saddles ... for instance has more visible detail on the disc than anyone ever saw at the theater ... even on opening night in the best theaters in the world.

Film projectors introduce jitter into the film ... the film gates that lock the film frame in create jitter. And since the film is presented at 48 fps ... each frame gets slammed into the gate twice. This vibrates the film frame up and down ... to say the least.

Add to that the heat of the lamp ... it causes the film to expand and contract ... altering the focus ...

And the bulb in the projector isn't even the same color temp as the TV system.

No, the theater experience and medium is a bit different than video and because of some of this, it is possible to improve upon the experience from the video end.

Regards

I have never seen any kind of 3D effect.

whats your display?

Lot of 3D like effects in The Chronicles of Riddick. Every body I demo to wants to get that on every movie (its even there to some extent in the SD DVD of CoR). It just make the pic stand out. Actually I am disappointed in most thearter presentations. Most of the cimamax complexs here are poorly set up (even tho they are new). Yes the screen is large and the sound can be down right awsome at times but over all never found the pic that sharp. Maybe cause of the size I always notice flaws more then on my HT at home. Only thearters that have impress me are the IMAX ones.
Yes - most theater presentations do not have superior contrast and color. Many look rather washed out in comparison to what we can get on these discs.

Sure the "resolution" of many theaters is supposed to be higher, but it is the contrast and color that really gives the 3D pop. Of course, it's not really 3D, but the impact helps "draw you in" to the movie MUCH better than more drab presentations.

King Kong is a superb example of this, but I've seen in on many superior HD presentations, such as Seabiscuit, Lucky Number Slevin, and many others.

It is very desirable and I wish most theaters could achieve this. IMAX can typically be counted on for it.

I know... it looks cleaner/better/crisper to me, too.

But, IMO the goal of home theater media should be to duplicate, as much as possible, what we see in the public theaterThen you can do so... just hang a few dozen lighted "EXIT" signs to kill the contrast ratio, and get some not so great speakers - TA DA! instant duplacte of movie theatre.

Nah - not for me, I prefer to have it better than the movie theater, thanks :)

3-D indicates a stereoscopic, or three-dimensional presentation, usually requiring glasses. Even in the best HD presentations, I don't feel like I'm seeing stereoscopic depth. Maybe a color pop?

I see this 3-D effect fairly often on my Pioneer 1130HD, but it's not just in special effects shots. I notice it a lot on discs with long distance shots, too--the "Plant Earth" boxset is a good example.

I notice it, too, on discs where you go from a scene which was purposefully shot blurry or grainy to a scene that was shot normally. Silent Hill is a perfect example of this. When the movie cuts back to room in the hospital basement after an extended flashblack it always strikes me as looking frighteningly realistic, with amazing depth.

On my 42" Samsung plasma, I do not notice any 3D effect when watching HD DVDs.

However at Circuit City, they were displaying the CG TMNT film on their plasma, and saw the Leonardo vs Raphael fight and noticed the 3D effect, and was amazed at the clarity (I never noticed this on when watching TMNT on my Samsung). Perhaps it's because of different settings? My TV was calibrated with Digital Video Essentials and I'm assuming the CC one wasn't.

When viewing an HD-DVD or blu-ray disc, we all seem to like the 3D effect. Many of us define the PQ of a given disc by noting how often we see these effects (the more the better). I sure do.

But why? When i view a movie in a public theater, i don't see any 3D effects up there on the big screen. Since the PQ of these is obviously superior to my 1080p display at home, why should i consider the 3D effect to be a good thing from a PQ standpoint?

I can't figure it out ....

I think the 3D effect we're seeing may be a function of the amount of detail in that image (or in the area of the image to which your eye is most drawn). At least, this is what I've heard recently (or did I read it here?). This may explain the difference. [EDIT: Obviously it also has to do with good lighting, etc., but I'm trying to isolate the variable here. I wish I could provide some sort of link to corroborate that assertion I began with. I think it has something to do with the greater detail being a cue that we're looking at something real, and since real objects occupy three-dimensional space, your mind makes that leap, fills in the blanks so to speak, presto, it's as if you're looking through a window.]

Where film has greater contrast range (latitude?) than video and "uncompressed" color, the projected image may be lacking in sharpness because of generation loss and the quality of the projector which can vary greatly. Film can weave (side to side), film can breathe (move forward and back) inside the projector gate, neither lending itself to maintaining sharpness (detail). Also, the projector's optics can greatly detract from image quality (some lenses are sharper than others).

HDM sidesteps all those issues. Or something like that.

I think it is the second chapter, but go to the chapter that shows the mountains in Blood Diamond. You will see a plane fly over the trees. For me, the trees have a color pop noticable and only after I set my tv to the color bars and black fade tests on my phillips dvd cleaner.

That's my movie example of what you are trying to show here. But my tv had to be calibrated first.

I saw it for the first time watching Apocolypto on Blu-Ray. The jungle scenes looked to be coming off the screens. Was quite impressive.